(Newser)
–
Water for Elephants, based on the bestselling book, tells the story of a young man who joins the circus during the Depression, working with an elephant and falling for a married performer. Critics are mixed:

The film “provides a constant wash of scenic pleasure,” and is true to the book, writes Todd McCarthy in the Hollywood Reporter. “But the vital spark that would have made the drama truly compelling on the screen is missing.”

Roger Ebert welcomes the film. “In an age of prefabricated special effects and obviously phony spectacle, it's sort of old-fashioned (and a pleasure) to see a movie made of real people and plausible sets,” he notes in the Chicago Sun-Times.

But in the New York Times, Stephen Holden strongly disagrees. The “timid screen adaptation,” he writes, “short-circuits the novel’s quirky charms and period atmosphere by its squeamish attitude toward gritty circus life.”

I just saw this last night. Not a big circus fan, but I love period pieces. No chemistry. Male lead an empty pretty face, a pretty odd-in-some-distracting-way face. Witherspoon out of her element as a supposedly ravishing beauty.(Cute, but not right for this part.) The poor guy from Inglorious Bastards could not, but tried to carry the whole movie by acting harder and harder. Besides him, the only convincing roles, played by minor-but-great character actors, kept getting thrown off the train, so the movie deteriorated the farther it moved down the track and became farcical. By the tragic scene, I could not contain my laughter.

finkster

Apr 22, 2011 2:33 PM CDT

"Water for Elephants Lukewarm" Well have they asked the Elephants if they like their water lukewarm? For all they know it doesn't matter to them...unless they requested hot tub water.

winterfairy

Apr 22, 2011 1:30 PM CDT

I read the book and truly enjoyed it. I doubt if i would want to stain the memory by seeing more Hollywood nonsense. But the review "provides a constant wash of scenic pleasure" is intriguing.